DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner’s Comments
As previously noted, applicant has provided a special definition of " ellipse” and “elliptical” in the specification paragraph [0053] states:
Herein, the terms “ellipse” and “elliptical” refer to non-circular ellipses and non-circular elliptical shapes. That is, an elliptical light beam or elliptical mirror, as defined herein, has a diameter along its major axis that is greater than the diameter along its minor axis.
Normally all circles and circular shapes would be considered to be a special case of an ellipse or an elliptical shape. However, applicant has disavowed the full scope of the term by eliminating circle and circular ellipses (with the same axis length in all directions) from a broader interpretation of ellipse and elliptical. Applicant has assigned this special meaning to the term that is "sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the invention" Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477, 45 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Therefore, this definition will control interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim. Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., Fed. Cir. 1999; see MPEP 2111.01.IV.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 27-29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bella US Patent Application Publication 2021/0396990.
Regarding claim 27 Bella discloses a micro-electromechanical system (MEMS) mirror (title e.g. figure 3 MEMS device 300) comprising: an elliptical mirror plate (e.g. mirror 12 & paragraph [0078] “Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the shape of the mirror 12 can be any shape desired for a particular application, e.g., a circle, ellipse, square, rectangle or other shape as desired”) configured to oscillate (axiomatic e.g. paragraph [0076] “mirror body 20 can oscillated about the rotation axis 13”) about a rotational axis (e.g. rotation axis 13); two rotors coupled to the elliptical mirror plate (e.g. see annotated figure A below); a first stator (e.g. see annotated figure A below) that is disposed on a substrate (paragraph [0086] “50 provided and integrated with semiconductor substrate”) and that is capacitively coupled to the two rotors (paragraph [0064] notes MEMs driver 25 “… using a change in capacitance in a comb-drive rotor and stator of an actuator structure used to drive the MEMS mirror 12”); and a second stator (e.g. see annotated figure A below) that is disposed on the substrate (paragraph [0086]) and that is capacitively coupled to the two rotors (paragraph [0064]), wherein the first stator and the second stator are configured to drive an oscillation of the elliptical mirror plate (paragraph [0064, 0068 & 0086] “the actuator structures 50 may by a comb drives that include mirror combs attached to the mirror body 20 interleaved with frame combs attached to the frame 40. Applying a difference in electrical potential between interleaved mirror combs and frame combs creates a driving force between the mirror combs and the frame combs, which creates a torque on the mirror body 20 about the rotation axis 13”).
[AltContent: textbox (1st stator)]
[AltContent: textbox (2nd stator)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (rotor)][AltContent: textbox (rotor)]
PNG
media_image1.png
558
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow]Figure A. Annotated version of figure 3 showing two rotors each interacting with a 1st and 2nd stator.
Regarding claim 28 Bella discloses the MEMS mirror of claim 27, as set forth above. Bella further discloses wherein the first stator (e.g. see annotated figure A above) comprises a first plurality of comb drivers (e.g. see annotated figure A above), the second stator (e.g. see annotated figure A above) comprises a second plurality of comb drivers (e.g. see annotated figure A above), and the first plurality of comb drivers and the second plurality of comb drivers are configured to drive the oscillation of the elliptical mirror plate (paragraph [0064, 0068 & 0086] “actuator structure includes interdigitated finger electrodes made of interdigitated mirror combs and frame combs to which a drive voltage (i.e., an actuation or driving signal) is applied by the MEMS driver … The drive voltage applied to the finger structure generates a corresponding capacitance. The drive voltage across the finger structure creates a driving force between interdigitated mirror comb electrodes and the frame comb electrodes, which creates a torque on the mirror body 20 about the rotation axis”).
Regarding claim 29 Bella discloses the MEMS mirror of claim 28, as set forth above. Bella further discloses it is further comprising: at least two torsional bars (e.g. central support beams 31) configured to couple the two rotors to the substrate such that the elliptical mirror plate is suspended from the at least two torsional bars (e.g. see annotated figure A above).
Regarding claim 31 Bella discloses the MEMS mirror of claim 27, as set forth above. Bella further discloses wherein the major axis (e.g. D1 paragraph [0078] “dimension D1 … which defines its largest dimension in the X-Y plane”) of the elliptical mirror plate is substantially orthogonal to a rotational axis (e.g. 13) of the elliptical mirror plate (paragraph [0004] “In the case of an elliptical mirror, the longest diameter corresponds to the length of the major axis, which may extend perpendicular to the scanning axis” e.g. see figure 3 with largest dimension D1 orthogonal to scanning/rotational axis 13).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bella US Patent Application Publication 2021/0396990.
Regarding claim 32 Bella discloses the MEMS mirror of claim 31, as set forth above. Bella does not disclose wherein the minor axis of the elliptical mirror plate is approximately half as long as the major axis of the elliptical mirror plate. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Bella has a MEMS reflector with an elliptical mirror plate oscillated by comb drivers, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to modify the relative sizes of the ellipse axes based on the application (Bella paragraph [0078]) and/or to reduce the inertia (Bella paragraph [0004]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the system as disclosed by Bella to have the minor axis of the elliptical mirror plate is approximately half as long as the major axis of the elliptical mirror plate for the purpose of having the mirror appropriately sized for a particular application and/or to reduce the inertia as taught by Bella and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Double Patenting
Applicant has opted to defer discussion regarding the double patenting rejection set forth in the Office correspondence of March 18, 2026. The examiner maintains the rejection against U.S. Patent No. 11,971,556 for the same reasons set forth in said correspondence.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed June 16, 2026, with respect to claim rejection under 112 have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are persuasive. The claim rejection under 112 has been withdrawn.
Regarding applicant’s argument centered on Bella failing to disclose two rotors each capacitively coupled to a first and second stator, the examiner is unpersuaded. The examiner apologizes poorly laying out the commensurate features in Bella to the instant application. The examiner has inserted an annotated figure A above. This annotated figure is commensurate with instant application figure 16, annotated in figure B below. Regarding being “capacitively coupled” – Bella, see at least paragraph [0064], discloses “using a change in capacitance in a comb-drive rotor and stator of an actuator structure used to drive the MEMS mirror 12”.
[AltContent: textbox (1st stator)]
[AltContent: textbox (rotor)][AltContent: textbox (rotor)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
586
910
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (2nd stator)]
Figure B. Annotated version of figure 16 showing two rotors each interacting with a 1st and 2nd stator.
Regarding Bella failing to disclose a target range for a ratio between the major axis and the minor axis means one of skill in the art would not optimize the dimensions, the examiner is unpersuaded. The examiner agrees that Bella does not give details regarding the ratio between the major axis and the minor axis and that D2 is unrelated to this issue. However, Bella clearly indicates use of an elliptical mirror with the largest dimension (i.e. major axis) D1, as set forth above. In the art, reducing the moment of inertia (i.e. reducing the size/mass of the mirror) is important for improving the resonance frequency and dynamic capabilities of a MEMS mirror device (see at least Bella paragraphs [0004 & 0041]). Further, given the amount of rotation/throw of the mirror would elongate major axis. One of ordinary skill would optimize the size of the mirror (i.e. major/minor axis size) based on the spot size, amount of rotation/throw and required resonance frequency, which involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, see MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571) 272-2333. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 June 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights